No I don't want it taught in schools, but I would like the distinction to be made between philosophy and science; ie "As of yet, science cannot measure anything outside of the natural realm of matter and the interactions between matter, but that has no bearing on weather or not supernatural occurrences can or have influenced matter in the past. The question of origins relies largely on philosophy, and some scientists have adopted the naturalistic philosophy; the system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws, since scientists cannot detect supernatural occurrences and factor them in. If there were supernatural occurrences through the history of the world, then there is no telling how the natural evidence was affected. Some people have taken the time to incorporate supernatural occurrences recorded by world religions into theories of the origin of life and the universe, which may also be valid. Some have even suggested nature alone cannot explain the origin of life and the universe, and we are currently still exploring how this might have been possible. The origins science taught in this class will only focus on the scope of the natural world as currently detectable by science. These naturalistic origins theories are subject to change with new understanding of natural laws."

If we taught our children this in public schools, then maybe we would see a decline in atheists who seem so superior, as if they hold a monopoly on logic and reason.

IMHO State government (socialist?) schools are in violation of:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (First Amendment)

They currently prohibit certain education, in the state schools...

Also I.D. and darwinism can be considered unrealistic worldview's because they don't account for things like the character of matter, reasons for math, life; purpose etc.

IMHO State government (socialist?) schools are in violation of:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (First Amendment)

They currently prohibit certain education, in the state schools...

Well, I don't see how the education of children is in any way infringing upon your practicing religion in your home or in the pastoral building of your choice... If the governments allowed ID or creation science in science class, that would be endorsing Christianity. Either it's no ID/creationism, or ID, creationism, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, Hindu creationism and a host of other creation stories from all the different faiths too.So in short, it's either no religon in science classes, or all religions. Christianity doesn't get a free pass.

Also I.D. and darwinism can be considered unrealistic worldview's because they don't account for things like the character of matter, reasons for math, life; purpose etc.

Well, saying darwinism is an unrealistic worldview is just as valid as saying that gravitationism is an unrealistic worldview, and I would completely agree. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, not a worldview. You can build a worldview around evolution, but that's your personal interpretation. And saying darwinism doesn't account for math life and purpose is like saying Christianity is an unrealistic worldview because it is silent on issues of plumbing and car repairs. You cannot use the argument that because something does not fulfill a function it was never meant to fulfill in the first place, then that something is wrong.

Well, I don't see how the education of children is in any way infringing upon your practicing religion in your home or in the pastoral building of your choice... If the governments allowed ID or creation science in science class, that would be endorsing Christianity. Either it's no ID/creationism, or ID, creationism, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, Hindu creationism and a host of other creation stories from all the different faiths too.So in short, it's either no religon in science classes, or all religions. Christianity doesn't get a free pass.

First – “Endorsing” and “Congress passing a law” are two entirely different things.

Secondly – Under said amendment, Congress has no authority to keep anything Biblical out of the public schools (re-read the passage).

Thirdly – During the time of said passage, the Bible was being utilized as a Text Book in ALL public schools.

Fourthly – Teaching Macro-evolution as “fact” in the text books of public schools is absolutely NO different than teaching any “religion” as fact in any public school.

Conclusion: Teaching materialistic macroevolution or materialistic origins as fact in the public school IS infringing on not only the rights of believing Christians, but EVERYONE’S rights in America. Because, if the religion on atheism can be taught as fact and Christian theism cannot, then a fraud is being perpetrated upon the American people.

First – “Endorsing” and “Congress passing a law” are two entirely different things.

Whoops, my bad! Sorry. As a Canadian, the way the American (and Canadian one too, to a degree ) legal system works is unknown to me, I don't really know any of the nuances or specifics. I apologise for the inconveniences/misunderstandings this will probably cause.

Secondly – Under said amendment, Congress has no authority to keep anything Biblical out of the public schools (re-read the passage).

I'm not entirely sure I read this correctly, but yes, Congress has no authority to keep the Bible out of the public schools. It does however have authority to keep religion out of it, meaning you can study the Bible in literature class but you cannot have a priest coming in and performing a religious ceremony.

Thirdly – During the time of said passage, the Bible was being utilized as a Text Book in ALL public schools.

I'm not sure I get this one either. Are you saying that the Bible was used as a textbook in the States back in the day in all public schools? And this would mean that the Bible should remain in public schools? I don't understand.

Fourthly – Teaching Macro-evolution as “fact” in the text books of public schools is absolutely NO different than teaching any “religion” as fact in any public school.

Except, of course, for the fact that the modern synthesis of evolution is a scientific theory, and that atheism is the lack of religion. Evolution is descend with modification, in its most basic form. You can tack on whatever other beliefs you want, incorporate evolution in your worldview, but that doesn't change the fact that evolution is strictly a scientific subject which does not pronounce itself on religion at all.I do believe that stating that evolution is a religion would be equivocation.

Conclusion: Teaching materialistic macroevolution or materialistic origins as fact in the public school IS infringing on not only the rights of believing Christians, but EVERYONE’S rights in America. Because, if the religion on atheism can be taught as fact and Christian theism cannot, then a fraud is being perpetrated upon the American people.

According to your logic, your conclusion is correct (and I completely understand your reasoning and reasons for arriving at this conclusion) but your logic is based on a flawed premise. Atheism and the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution are not equal to Christianity, they are not religions. Therefore, Congress is not endorsing or enforcing one belief over another, they are simply allowing the curriculum to include the latest scientific discoveries. Your argument that evolution cannot be taught unless creationism/ID is taught also, is an equivocation.

Here's a simple test. As a religious group, I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of Christians recognize/venerate the Cross upon which Jesus Son of God died for our sins, correct? That is their belief. However, being christian is also more than that. It is also going to church on Sundays, saying grace before supper, praying with your hands clasped, and taking the Eucharist. This is art of what defines someone as a christian, because non-christians do not do this.Now, how would you define an atheist, not only in what they believe, but also how they act, what are their religious obligations, their religious rituals?

I can say that Muslims go to their Mosque and Imam, Jews to their Temple and Rabbi, Jehova Witnesses to their Temple Hall with their Elders. These are all recognized religions. What now are the 'religious' practices of 'religious' atheists? I will submit that you cannot say. I will submit that there is not one or a group of actions and practices that sets the atheists apart as a religious group. Atheists cannot be set apart as a religious group, because they are not religious. Atheists are just a group of people who share disbelief about the same things.

First – “Endorsing” and “Congress passing a law” are two entirely different things.Whoops, my bad! Sorry. As a Canadian, the way the American (and Canadian one too, to a degree ) legal system works is unknown to me, I don't really know any of the nuances or specifics. I apologise for the inconveniences/misunderstandings this will probably cause.

No problem, many Americans make the same mistakes.

Secondly – Under said amendment, Congress has no authority to keep anything Biblical out of the public schools (re-read the passage). I'm not entirely sure I read this correctly, but yes, Congress has no authority to keep the Bible out of the public schools. It does however have authority to keep religion out of it, meaning you can study the Bible in literature class but you cannot have a priest coming in and performing a religious ceremony.

Actually, as per the Constitution of the United States, Congress cannot pass ANY laws concerning ANY religion OR stop the “FREE EXERCISE” of ANY religion. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (First Amendment)

It’s not hard to read the plain meaning of the above amendment, yet MANY do! Further, Congress has never passed any laws saying a priest cannot come in and a religious ceremony. What makes this even more hilarious is that EVERY session of congress is opened with a “Christian Prayer”, by a Chaplin (position paid by congress). And this has been established as a requisite since Congress was established.

So, it is a little more than hypocritical for ANYONE to claim “Separation of Church and State” followed by anything but laughter (or shock). Further, I desire ANYONE to provide a “Separation of Church and State” in ANY foundational document of this country (Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Federalist Papers)… It simply doesn’t exist! What does exist is the excerpt provided above. And simply put, the United States Government, as per the Constitution of the United Sates, has no right to make ANY laws concerning religion and the freedom of those who exercise it!

Thirdly – During the time of said passage, the Bible was being utilized as a Text Book in ALL public schools.I'm not sure I get this one either. Are you saying that the Bible was used as a textbook in the States back in the day in all public schools? And this would mean that the Bible should remain in public schools? I don't understand.

It goes to disprove the post-modernist historical revisionist’s interpolation of “Separation of Church and State”. A term that didn’t exist until lately! What it does, is shows that the Bible AND Christianity was a major part of the founding of this country. Further, the Bible was used for a lot more than “religious” classes. Even a cursory study into the subject would prove this. Even the Primers used in early education utilized Biblical passages as part of the study curriculum.

Fourthly – Teaching Macro-evolution as “fact” in the text books of public schools is absolutely NO different than teaching any “religion” as fact in any public school. Except, of course, for the fact that the modern synthesis of evolution is a scientific theory, and that atheism is the lack of religion. Evolution is descend with modification, in its most basic form. You can tack on whatever other beliefs you want, incorporate evolution in your worldview, but that doesn't change the fact that evolution is strictly a scientific subject which does not pronounce itself on religion at all.I do believe that stating that evolution is a religion would be equivocation.

First – Atheism is a belief that there is NO God (or gods). It, in fact, IS NOT a lack of religion. In fact, there are numerous “religions” that are based in atheism. Also, there have been court rulings that have deemed atheism as a religion. Therefore your hypothesis fails.

Second – Micro-evolution is nothing more than “adaptation” within a kind/species. This can be scientifically observed and tested using the empirical scientific method.

MACRO-evolution, on the other hand, is the presupposition that Micro-evolution + millions of years will ‘evolve’ one kind/species into another (example: the myth an aquatic creature ‘evolved’ into a land dwelling wolf-like creature, then evolved into the modern whale and returned to the ocean <a type of de-evolution?>. This is over simplified, yet retains the main points of the story). This cannot be scientifically observed and tested using the empirical scientific method, and is therefore NOT “strictly a scientific subject”. It is, rather, a mere presupposed opinion. There are MANY more examples, but I really don’t need them here. Therefore your hypothesis fails.

Conclusion: Teaching materialistic macroevolution or materialistic origins as fact in the public school IS infringing on not only the rights of believing Christians, but EVERYONE’S rights in America. Because, if the religion on atheism can be taught as fact and Christian theism cannot, then a fraud is being perpetrated upon the American people.According to your logic, your conclusion is correct (and I completely understand your reasoning and reasons for arriving at this conclusion) but your logic is based on a flawed premise. Atheism and the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution are not equal to Christianity, they are not religions. Therefore, Congress is not endorsing or enforcing one belief over another, they are simply allowing the curriculum to include the latest scientific discoveries. Your argument that evolution cannot be taught unless creationism/ID is taught also, is an equivocation.

First – Actually “atheism” IS analogous to religion Alex. To put it bluntly and succinctly, the atheist lives their life by “faith” that there is NO God. But this materialistic atheist cannot even give a factual based materialistic/naturalistic empirically scientific explanation for our origins (the universe, life, intelligence etc…). And that is amazing, because the atheistic scientist (and atheist in general) believes EVERYTHING is naturalistically materialistic, and will one day be explained by science (a prayer to the future). Therefore the atheist “believes” that one day, there will be a materialistic/naturalistic explanation for our origins (the universe, life, intelligence etc…). Yet ALL the evidence adduced cries out for an “Initial Causer”, A “Causer” that began all of this! Logically, rationally and scientifically, we know that “From Nothing, Nothing Comes”; and, in that alone materialism fails.

Secondly – I at no time claimed “that evolution cannot be taught unless creationism/ID is taught”. I simply stated the fact that the religion of atheism is taught as fact and Christian theism is not. Further, it is NOT an equivocation to say that if one religion is taught in the public school, there should be no objection for the other to be taught. Therefore I at no time equivocated on anything. You may want to re-read the post.

if i may chime in since this is somewhat of an area i know about. first off the declaration of indepence is a good place to start as it stays where our rights come from and what the founders were going to do to secure them god given rights and yes the bible and the ten comandments and prayer were all in the public schools at one time. these werent forced on you but given the nature of our culture the only way we can go back to that is for most of the nation to repent and believe.

Jayshel, I gather from your post that rather than teach ID/Creationism, you would prefer to see evolution taught more as a philosophy than a science. Have I understood you correctly?

Also Jayshel, thank you for clarifying the difference between ID and creation science (you actually used the word 'creationism', so should I assume they are the same thing?). I think I will have further questions on this, but haven't properly formulated them yet.

Jayshel, I gather from your post that rather than teach ID/Creationism, you would prefer to see evolution taught more as a philosophy than a science. Have I understood you correctly?

That is very similar to what I think should happen. In teaching evolution they can claim that fossils are similar DNA is similar etc, however the distinction must be made that these "evidences" are not directly associated with evolution, nor do they show the method of how such similarities came to be... rather evolution is assumed to be the cause. Assuming the conclusion is not scientific hence is more in keeping with a philosophical stance than that of actual science.